ACC ~ Matthew 12 v1 - 8

OVERVIEW:

The sabbath was given to remind humanity that God the Creator rested from labor, and so should we (THEODORE OF HERACLEA). Christ did not attempt to repeal the sabbath law, but rather he greatly magnified the sabbath. With Christ came the time for everyone to be trained by a higher requirement (CHRYSOSTOM, HILARY). He never broke the law without adequate cause and always gave a reasonable justification. His purpose in eating grain on the sabbath was to bring the old law to transformation, yet not in a defiant manner (CHRYSOSTOM). The Pharisees remained quiet when nothing great was happening, but when they saw miracles of healing, they were offended (CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA). Yet they themselves had violated the sabbath by immolating victims in the temple (JEROME). Jesus concluded something more decisive: the deed of plucking grain on the sabbath is no sin at all. The messianic Lawgiver was overriding the presumed law. This reversal was occurring in a particular time and place and by those with a special calling: in the temple, on the sabbath, by priests (CHRYSOSTOM). Jesus clearly revealed that he himself was the temple (HILARY).

12:1 | The Disciples Pick Grain on the Sabbath

THROUGH THE GRAINFIELDS

HILARY: We must first point out the beginning of this passage: “At that time Jesus went through the standing grain.” This is set at the time he gave thanks to God the Father for having given salvation to the people. The same meaning is given to what went before (his thanksgiving) and what came after (his walking in the fields). Note the relationships. Spiritually viewed, the land is the world, the sabbath is the day of rest, and the crop is the effect of future believers upon the harvest. Therefore, having gone out to a field on the sabbath, the day of rest under God’s law, he proceeded into this world, to visiting the crop, the sown field of the human race. And since hunger is the craving for human salvation, the disciples hasten to pluck off the ears of corn, namely, the holy people, to get their fill of salvation. But the grain is not yet ready for human consumption. Rather, the crop upholds faith in the events to come. The added power of words completes the sacrament that implies both hunger and fullness. ON MATTHEW 12.2. [1]

[1] SC 254:270.

HIS DISCIPLES WERE HUNGRY

CHRYSOSTOM: How could he who foreknew all things be unaware of the consequences of this action, unless it had been his will that the sabbath law had to be reinterpreted? That was his will indeed, but not in a simple sense. He never broke the law without adequate cause, and always by giving a reasonable justification. His purpose in doing so was to bring the old law to an end, yet not in a defiant manner. There are indeed occasions in which he repeals the old law directly and without any fanfare, as when he anointed the eyes of the blind man with clay, and as when he said, “My Father is still working, and I also am working.” [1] He does this to glorify his own Father and to soothe the enmity of the Jews. His appeal is to the necessity of nature in this case, since his disciples were hungry. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 39.1. [2]

[1] Jn 5:17 NRSV.

[2] PG 57:433-34; NPNF 1 10:255**.

12:2 | Not Lawful on the Sabbath

THE PHARISEES SAW IT

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: For where nothing great or noble happens, the Pharisees remain quiet. But where they see certain people being healed, they are more offended than anyone else. In this way they are the enemies of humanity’s salvation and without understanding of the sacred writings. If the new covenant announced of old by Jeremiah differs from the first covenant, it ought by all means to make use not of old laws but of new ones. But the Pharisees, not willing to comprehend this, lay snares for the holy apostles and say about them to Christ: “Look here, we see those you’ve schooled opposing themselves to the stipulations of the law. For where the law commands everyone to rest on the sabbath and to touch no manner of work, your disciples pluck ears of wheat with their hands.” But tell me, O Pharisee, when you have set the sabbath table for yourself, don’t even you break the bread? Why then do you blame others? FRAGMENT 152. [1]

[1] MKGK 201-2.

12:3-4 | The Bread of the Presence

DAVID ATE THE BREAD OF THE PRESENCE

JEROME: To put down the chicanery of the Pharisees it is recorded in ancient history that David was fleeing from Saul and came to Nob. [1] Having been received by Ahimelech the priest, he asked him for food. Since Ahimelech had no common bread at hand, he gave David some holy bread, which only priests and Levites could lawfully eat. The priest asked whether the young men had kept themselves from women, and he received the answer “since yesterday and the day before.” [2] He did not hesitate to give the bread, having thought it better, remembering that the prophet says, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” [3] In view of the danger of hunger, Ahimelech judged it better to help people than to offer sacrifice to God. The slain victim pleasing to God is the salvation of humankind. If David is holy and the priest Ahimelech is not offensive to you, but they have broken both commandments of the law with a probable excuse—in this case, hunger—why do you not find acceptable the same hunger in the apostles that you find acceptable in others? However, in this there is a great difference: the disciples plucked grain on the sabbath, whereas David ate the levitical bread. … Note that neither David nor his young men accepted the loaves of the presence until they replied that they had kept themselves from women. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 2.14.4. [4]

[1] 1 Sam 21:1-9.

[2] 1 Sam 21:5.

[3] Hos 6:6.

[4] CCL 77:88.

12:5 | The Priests in the Temple

PRIESTS GUILTLESS

CHRYSOSTOM: Do not reply that one does not free oneself from blame by noting that someone else is committing the same offense. Or that if the offender has no blame, his act becomes a rule for others to plead.

Jesus was not satisfied with such reasoning. Instead, he concludes something more decisive: the deed itself in this case is no sin at all! This more than anything was the sign of a glorious victory: For here the Giver of the law was overriding the law. [1] This victory occurs in a particular place, the temple, and on a particular day, the sabbath. One might even point to several levels of legal reversal, pertaining to the work that is done; it is done by priests, and more so, that it elicits no charges. For they remain guiltless.

Do you see how many levels of argument Jesus is making in stating this case? They are “in the temple.” The persons involved are “priests.” The time is “the sabbath.” The act itself is “profane.” Note that he does not say gently that they “break” the sabbath law but more grievously that they “profane” it. Yet in all this they not only escape punishment but are free from blame, being “guiltless.”

So do not treat the example of the priests in the same way as the example of David. For David’s case occurred only once, and was not done by a priest, and occurred due to an explicit need, and so was deserving of excuse. But the example of the priests was done repeatedly, every sabbath, was done by priests, and was done in the temple, and it too was of necessity. They were acquitted of charges not by special pleading or indulgence but on reasonable grounds according to the principles of justice. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 39.2. [2]

[1] The Lawgiver was overriding a particular interpretation of the law.

[2] PG 57:435; NPNF 1 10:256**.

HOW THE PRIESTS PROFANE THE TEMPLE

JEROME: You falsely accuse my disciples, Jesus says, for plucking ears of grain while passing through the standing fields. They did this because of their pangs of hunger. But you must violate the sabbath by immolating victims in the temple, slaughtering bulls and burning holocausts on a heap of firewood and, according to the testimony of the other Gospel, circumcising children on the sabbath. [1] Thus, while you wish to observe the one law, you dishonor the sabbath. But God’s commands do not contradict each other. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 2.12.5. [2]

[1] Jn 7:22-23.

[2] 12.

12:6 | Greater Than the Temple

CHRIST IS THE TEMPLE

HILARY: Christ also reminded them of another prophecy so that they might learn that all things that were spoken of previously were accomplished in him through the law, that the priests in the temple broke the sabbath without offense, clearly revealing that Jesus himself was the temple. In him salvation was given to the Gentiles through the teaching of the apostles, while the people who were bound by the law wandered about faithlessly, so that he himself might be greater than the sabbath. Evangelical faith lived in Christ transcends the law. ON MATTHEW 12.4. [1]

[1] SC 254:272.

12:7 | Not Condemning the Guiltless

IF YOU HAD KNOWN

HILARY: In order to show that this appearance of his work anticipated all the power of things to come, he added, “If you understood what the saying means: ‘I want mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would never have condemned the blameless.” The business of our salvation lies not in sacrifice but in mercy. When law is made void, we are saved by the goodness of God. If they had understood the grace of this statement, they would never have condemned the blameless. They would not have condemned the apostles whom they were going to accuse falsely, out of envy, of transgressing the law. When the ancient practice of sacrifices was stopped, the strangeness of mercy became more clearly known. Had this been known, they would not have thought that the Lord of the sabbath was confined by the law of the sabbath. ON MATTHEW 12.5. [1]

[1] SC 254:272.

MERCY, NOT SACRIFICE

CHRYSOSTOM: The faithful are more than priests. For the Lord of the temple himself has come to them. The Truth personally has arrived, not merely the image of the truth. So he could say, “I tell you, something greater than the temple is here!”

Nevertheless, great as the sayings were which they heard, they made no reply, for they were inattentive to the coming salvation of humanity. Then, because it might otherwise seem harsh to his hearers, Jesus quickly drew a veil over his discourse, giving it a lenient turn, yet even then conveying a sharp admonition: “If you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.” Do you see once again how his speech is inclined toward leniency, yet showing the priests themselves to be in need of leniency? THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 39.2. [1]

[1] PG 57:436; NPNF 1 10:256-57**.

12:8 | The Lord of the Sabbath

THE LAW OF THE SABBATH

CHRYSOSTOM: Doubtless he speaks of himself when he mentions the “Lord of the sabbath.” Mark relates a complementary saying about our common human nature, that “the sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the sabbath. [1]

Why then should someone who gathered sticks on the sabbath be censured? The law that was established earlier could not be scorned without jeopardizing the law to be given later.

The sabbath did confer many benefits, great blessings in the earlier dispensation. It made people more gentle toward those close to them. It guided them toward being more sympathetic. It located them temporally within God’s creation and providence, as Ezekiel knew. [2] The sabbath trained Israel by degrees to abstain from evil and disposed them to listen to the things of the Spirit.

They would have stretched the law out of shape if, when he was giving the law of the sabbath, Jesus had said, “You can work on the sabbath, but just do good works, do nothing evil.” This would have brought out the worst in them. So he restrained them from doing any works at all on the sabbath. And even this stricter prohibition did not keep them in line. But he himself, in the very act of giving the law of the sabbath, gave them a veiled sign of things to come. For by saying, “You must do no work, except what shall be done for your life,” [3] he indicated that the intent of the law was to have them refrain from evil works only, not all works. Even in the temple, much went on during the sabbath, and with great diligence and double toil. Thus even by this very shadowy saying Jesus was secretly opening the truth to them.

Did Christ then attempt to repeal a law so beneficial as the sabbath law? Far from it. Rather, he greatly magnified the sabbath. For with Christ came the time for everyone to be trained by a higher requirement. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 39.3. [4]

[1] Mk 2:27.

[2] Ezek 20:19-20.

[3] Ex 12:16.

[4] PG 57:436-37; NPNF 1 10:257**.

WHY THE SABBATH WAS GIVEN

THEODORE OF HERACLEA: You will also thus observe that knowing God is more necessary than resting on the sabbath. The sabbath was given to the Jews when, in Egypt, they were turned toward idolatry. And the sabbath was given for this reason: so that they would not call the world uncreated and outside the sphere of providence, but that they would acknowledge that God is both the One who planned it and that it is he himself who made the world in six days and on the seventh day rested. When God commanded them to do no work on the sabbath, it was to remind them of this. Subsequently, the fact that God is the Maker of the universe has become known to all, and so much of the detailed sabbath law has become superficial. If these extreme arguments about the sabbath were truly useful, they would have been applied not only to human beings but even to the sun and moon. Imagine that the very sun would cease working its benefits to us on the sabbath day. No. This commandment has been given to human beings, even from the foundation of the world. FRAGMENT 84. [1]

[1] MKGK 79-80.